Apple apes trademarked Swiss railway clock for iPad’s new Clock app

Swiss Federal Railways wants compensation for use of its iconic design.

Apple added a Clock app to the iPad in iOS 6, but the company may get into trouble for the visual look of the app's analog-style clock face. According to Swiss newspaper Tages Anzeiger, Apple's designers copied the iconic—and trademarked—look of the Swiss Federal Railway (Schweizerische Bundesbahnen, or SBB) clocks used in train stations all over Switzerland. And the SBB wants Apple to pay up.

This isn't the first time Apple has used an iconic design for an iOS app. The original iOS calculator used a design that paid homage to the classic Braun ET44 calculator. Apple SVP of Industrial Design Jonathan Ive is well-known as an unabashed fan of Braun designer Dieter Rams.

However, SBB noted that it has a copyright and trademark on the design of its railway station clocks, which have become an icon of both SBB and Switzerland itself. "We enjoy the fact that the Swiss railway clock is being used by Apple. It once again proves that it's a real piece of design," SBB spokesperson Christian Ginsig said. "This act, however, is an unauthorized use [of the clock's design] by Apple."

SBB said that it is contacting Apple to work out a "legal and financial" resolution.

Using the SBB railway clock's design could be viewed as yet another homage to a classic, but it seems SBB isn't going to simply take the compliment. And catching Apple making unauthorized copies of any design is especially ironic in light of the company's repeated claims that Samsung "slavishly copied" its iPhone and iPad designs for its smartphones and tablets.

After the stupid elements that Apple sued Samsung over I hope that Apple has to pay up big time in this case.

If Apple sues Samsung again, Samsung should try and get this admitted into the record; maybe they can argue as a defense that this sort of creative license is an industry standard and thus since it's ok for Apple to do it they can do it too.

It doesn't mimic the unique behavior of the Swiss Railways clock. Apple's version just sweeps smoothly for 60 seconds. The Swiss original sweeps smoothly through the full circle, taking 59 seconds to do so, then pauses at the top for 1 second.

After the stupid elements that Apple sued Samsung over I hope that Apple has to pay up big time in this case.

If Apple sues Samsung again, Samsung should try and get this admitted into the record; maybe they can argue as a defense that this sort of creative license is an industry standard and thus since it's ok for Apple to do it they can do it too.

While Apple will probably end up paying for this... surely you are not saying the two cases are remotely comparable?

That's absurd.

Not only did Samsung copy, well... an insane amount of things from Apple... but their own internal emails and memos proved that this was their intent the entire time. Unless something similar surfaces from Apple, it would be pretty difficult to call this evidence even a fraction as damning as that against Samsung.

It's a pretty obvious case of copying, so Apple should do the right thing and just make some agreement. I hope this doesn't end up in court (can't imagine anyone would bother, but you never know these days).

After the stupid elements that Apple sued Samsung over I hope that Apple has to pay up big time in this case.

If Apple sues Samsung again, Samsung should try and get this admitted into the record; maybe they can argue as a defense that this sort of creative license is an industry standard and thus since it's ok for Apple to do it they can do it too.

... Aside from the seconds hand, they're not even THAT similar. Everything else appears to be of different density/length/etc

I'd agree that might be different enough to steer clear of copyright, but not of trademark (at least, based on the US version of it).

I guess I just don't understand the point though. Apple's argument (while a bit of a stretch) was that people may confuse Samsung's products for theirs and that they will be losing sales, revenue, etc.

No one is going to look at their iPhone and be like "holy shit... I'm in a Swiss train station!"

Surely they can just work out some sort of licensing agreement to use the general look of it?

After the stupid elements that Apple sued Samsung over I hope that Apple has to pay up big time in this case.

If Apple sues Samsung again, Samsung should try and get this admitted into the record; maybe they can argue as a defense that this sort of creative license is an industry standard and thus since it's ok for Apple to do it they can do it too.

Apple is in the wrong here and needs to fix it - either by changing the design ASAP or by licensing the design from Switzerland.

However, there's no "pay up big time", unless you think that the use of the Swiss Railway Clock directly led to sales and revenue. Samsung had to "pay up big time" because that's exactly what their aping of the iPhone's hardware and software design did - it led to more sales.

But back on topic, this is really, REALLY dumb of Apple. Someone will be fired over this.

The problem with Apple is that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Because of over vigilant lawyers working in one wing of apple, their designers are now held to a higher standard in regards to innovation and use of existing trademark design. Keeping with tradition simply isn't good enough anymore for Apple designers.

After the stupid elements that Apple sued Samsung over I hope that Apple has to pay up big time in this case.

If Apple sues Samsung again, Samsung should try and get this admitted into the record; maybe they can argue as a defense that this sort of creative license is an industry standard and thus since it's ok for Apple to do it they can do it too.

While Apple will probably end up paying for this... surely you are not saying the two cases are remotely comparable?

That's absurd.

Not only did Samsung copy, well... an insane amount of things from Apple... but their own internal emails and memos proved that this was their intent the entire time. Unless something similar surfaces from Apple, it would be pretty difficult to call this evidence even a fraction as damning as that against Samsung.

Yeah, this should apply to everything. We can only have two manufacturers of square ovens, one with sharp edges and one with round, unless one company gets the patent for both. We can't have similar features like transparent glass either, lights on the inside, or making food hot. Copying is how many things get better, iteratively. If I make a new lawn mower, should it not look like any other lawn mower? What Apple is upset about is the style of their design, and that isn't something you should be able to protect with a patent.

Will this never end? The clocks are superficially similar, but there are enough differences that i would not call them the same. It is like pointing at two very similar (but different) fonts and calling them the same.

Note: I am in no way an Apple fan and find their shenanigans annoying in the extreme.

... Aside from the seconds hand, they're not even THAT similar. Everything else appears to be of different density/length/etc

...seriously?

That's like saying plagiarism is OK if you change a few words.

Funny how people consider this a legitimate excuse when Samsung uses it for their products, but not if Apple were to use it for theirs then, no?

There is a difference between trademark and patent. And it is very significant, there is no way a patent on a clock face should hold, but a trademark is completely different such that this violates trademark.

Stupid mistake on Apple's part, not just licensing in advance. Dollars to donuts they announce a licensing deal in the next few weeks.

It strikes me as exceedingly unlikely that Apple would pull a Samsung and go to trial insisting that there wasn't any copying, except what was copied but was the only possible way of doing things, which was copied accidentally, except where documents show it was careful and well considered, in which case the copying was excusable because two wrongs make a right.

Apple made a dumb and amateur move. Hopefully they address it directly and transparently.

Regardless of the expectation, the incongruity of Apple arguing that their "IP" should be protected, despite being all too happy to rip off others' "IP" presents an incongruity that can only be defined as ironic.

... Aside from the seconds hand, they're not even THAT similar. Everything else appears to be of different density/length/etc

I'd agree that might be different enough to steer clear of copyright, but not of trademark (at least, based on the US version of it).

I guess I just don't understand the point though. Apple's argument (while a bit of a stretch) was that people may confuse Samsung's products for theirs and that they will be losing sales, revenue, etc.

No one is going to look at their iPhone and be like "holy shit... I'm in a Swiss train station!"

Surely they can just work out some sort of licensing agreement to use the general look of it?

Regardless of the expectation, the incongruity of Apple arguing that their "IP" should be protected, despite being all too happy to rip off others' "IP" presents an incongruity that can only be defined as ironic.

Apple has been stealingpaying homage from the very beginning, so this is nothing new or surprising. Nor is the sheer nerve of suing Samsung for trade dress while simultaneously violating Switzerland's trade dress, they're Steve Jobs' massive ego, incorporated, after all.

They're close enough that Apple should either pay a licensing fee or design a clock face of their own. Yes, the shapes are a little different, but without close scrutiny, one could EASILY be mistaken for the other.

... Aside from the seconds hand, they're not even THAT similar. Everything else appears to be of different density/length/etc

I'd agree that might be different enough to steer clear of copyright, but not of trademark (at least, based on the US version of it).

I guess I just don't understand the point though. Apple's argument (while a bit of a stretch) was that people may confuse Samsung's products for theirs and that they will be losing sales, revenue, etc.

No one is going to look at their iPhone and be like "holy shit... I'm in a Swiss train station!"

Surely they can just work out some sort of licensing agreement to use the general look of it?

Or that they might think, the swiss train stations endorses the iPhone because that clock is a trademark of theirs. Kind of like having the olympic rings on the iPhone would make a fuss without paying.

Clearly Apple should have done some more original work, maybe place the 3 o'clock at 112 degres instead of 90, and change all the minor markings so they denoted increments of 42.8 seconds instead of minutes.

... Aside from the seconds hand, they're not even THAT similar. Everything else appears to be of different density/length/etc

I'd agree that might be different enough to steer clear of copyright, but not of trademark (at least, based on the US version of it).

I guess I just don't understand the point though. Apple's argument (while a bit of a stretch) was that people may confuse Samsung's products for theirs and that they will be losing sales, revenue, etc.

No one is going to look at their iPhone and be like "holy shit... I'm in a Swiss train station!"

Surely they can just work out some sort of licensing agreement to use the general look of it?

And who, exactly, is going to look at something that has "SAMSUNG" written on it in gigantic letters and think "holy shit... I'm holding an iPhone!"